Oh wow, someone’s focusing on the entirely wrong part of a comment, that he is.
4 Likes
But you used your idea of an incorrect argument as a direct comparison to your opponents. That is condescending, and also a false equivalency.
6 Likes
I respectfully disagree
Hey look, there’s a loop, and it only took, what, 10 posts? 11 tops.
5 Likes
Well if you are a-okay with going low and comparing your opponents arguments to what they are not, that’s fine then.
5 Likes
The problem is, when pointing out that his definition isn’t immediately clear to the reader without it being explained (because they are using a different definition than the widely agreed upon one) they’re digging their heels in, claiming it’s clear and concise. When the complaint is, it isn’t without it being explained.
It’s just frustrating more than anything.
3 Likes
but it’s not…and just saying so doesn’t make it so. The logic is very easy to follow. If we accept “anti” as meaning opposed to, and define “Mercy” in terms of her her current state of being(balance), then wanting to change said state is in essence “opposing” it. Thus, Anti-Mercy.
I can respect that you all don’t like the negative connotation attached to “anti” or that he drops an obscure definition that goes against the established norm, but at least go after Dodo for that and not his logic, which is sound.
2 Likes
I mean, we could also call that damaged logic, but I do see your point.
1 Like
I’m not even saying I don’t understand the definition though. I’m sure most of my fellow Mercy mains would call me out on being a #Mercyisfine or whatever it is. I’m just saying, if we already have knowledge that this term will most likely confuse somebody, I don’t understand why somebody wouldn’t just simply change it?
4 Likes
I don’t see anything damaged about it myself, but each person can choose to interpret things as they deem fit
You’re responding to the part of my post where the logic isn’t even being established and calling it damaged logic. This is ironic.
I think Dodo is just being stubborn and purposefully antagonistic, there’s a lot of animosity around the Mercy discussion. The only dog I have in this race is the hope that sound logic can be accepted as sound logic, regardless of who is saying it and how much they may be disliked. Once we let our disdain for someone cloud our judgment, we can’t have reasonable discussions anymore, and we need more of that around here, not less.
6 Likes
That’s reasonable. I understand your point.
3 Likes
Fair enough. My intent initially was to just point out “Hey, this doesn’t seem really accurate and here’s why I think that” and the conversation devolved from there. I definitely wasn’t much help at keeping this as civil as it should be.
I’m not sure what to say, other than it really is frustrating, because of how stubborn they’re being and that I feel labeled into something that doesn’t really fit. I’m certain I can’t be the only one either.
4 Likes
My intent is not to be antagonistic, but rather to defend my use of a term I have clearly and simply defined; and that frequently is topical across the many Mercy-related threads on these forums
If your intent was not to be antagonistic, then you would just change the term. In my opinion, that’s what any reasonable person would do. If I kept calling you something you didn’t like, regardless if I thought it was correct, I would still respect you enough to stop calling you that term so that we can continue having a mature discussion.
6 Likes
A really interesting one. The question: Which support is the most powerful is actually really hard for me, since Lucio was nerfed
2 Likes
Sort of. Sorry, I was being a bit vague there and probably sounded like I was referring to your statements as damaged. That wasn’t my intention.
I was referring to Dodo’s statements doing what you described and saying that one could call those aspects of the statements damaged logic.
However, I do see the point you were making and am gonna try and stick to arguments that make more sense.
2 Likes
Personally, I don’t see antagonism as being equivalent to standing up and defending something
Disagreement <> antagonism
It’s not so much the defending it, moreso the using it, knowing full and well it will cause derailment, confusion, and anger. There really is no need to continue using that specific term. Yes, there is a reason so separate those who want to see mercy receive changes, vs those who like the changed mercy that we have now. But we can do that by using other less confusing terms. Abstaining from using it all the time would honestly help your arguments, my friend.
7 Likes
I disagree, tho I do feel that I understand your position on this
If you’d like to come up with a term you think is more suitable, let me know, we can then discuss it
1 Like